Greg KH wrote:> A "driver" is not an "application" as you tried to reference in your> prior quotes.I think your treating what the learned Professors said to literally.

> It is a tiny portion of the whole kernel,

The Copyright Act draws no such a distinction.

> and as such,> does fall under the derivative works portion when it is run within the> Linux kernel.>

Section 0 of GPL: The act of running the Program is not restricted.

> Again, see the Samba decisions that have happened in the past when> companies have tried to add modules to it that are not under the GPL.> They have failed every single time, so there is a lot of precedent for> this kind of thing.>

I'd like to, but I've searched and searched and can't find them. Somepointers, maybe a search term, would be useful.

> This is going to be my last response on this thread,Good idea. I've spent too much time on this already, so I think I'lljoin you.